tph wrote:Perhaps the Lord has employed a firm of solicitors who have informed the mainstream media of his intentions to seek damages for anything considered dafamatory.
It could also be that the nature of the alleged offence makes it difficult to report without being prejudicial to the trial.
But they have reported it. It may be defamatory, but it is true, which gives an absolute defence.
It may be more defamatory to call him a Lord in the reports, but that is true as well.
I suppose one might argue that the nation herself is defamed by one of her peers conducting himself so badly, but if so, she should do something about it.